Wednesday, December 5, 2007

The Trigger Man Wore A Suit

The Fed is looking for ways to entice banks to borrow from its Discount Window and thus ease the "liquidity crisis" currently taking place. They believe that lowering the Discount Rate will shrink the gap between it and Fed Funds and therefore remove the stigma attached to borrowing from the Window, i.e. directly from the Fed.

This is a fallacy.

The stigma - which is very real - is related to having to use the Fed as lender of last resort, not the interest rate. If a bank has to borrow from the Fed, it means its peers in the interbank money market don't want to lend to it, i.e. its credit is no good amongst the professionals that know it best. In other words, it's in trouble.

Certainly, I am not referring to using the Window on an occasional basis because of some last minute liquidity need - that's perfectly OK. But if a bank has to borrow considerable sums from the Fed on a regular and extended basis... it's in trouble, period. Bankers know this and that's why they avoid the Window like the plague. The Fed officials are aware of this, of course; the fact that they are trying to entice banks to use the Window is a sign of how concerned they have really become. It confirms what we all know already: we are facing a full blown credit crisis and not a mere shortage of liquidity.

I will repeat: Mr. Bernanke is erroneously using 1929-32 as his model, or at least he's interpreting it erroneously. He's trying to start a fire during a rainstorm by lighting one match after another (i.e. cutting rates) and wonders why they are snuffed out by the heavy rain.

I respectfully submit that Mr. Bernanke first needs to get an umbrella.___________________________________________________________

And now, we return to our regularly scheduled program...

Continuing from yesterday's post:

Who were the trigger men that held a debt gun to the American family's head? Who caused prices for "assets" like a college education, housing and medical care to rise, whilst keeping wage increases to a minimum?

It all started with the neo-liberal economists of the Thatcher - Reagan era, who initiated the process of decimating wage income by attacking labor unions - by then rather easy targets who had disgraced themselves by acting as Big Labor. To be fair, the neo-lib actions should be interpreted in context: The Cold War was still in full swing, leading to ideological clashes between "capitalism and freedom" a la Milton Friedmanvs. the "socialist nanny-sate" of the Eurosclerotics. The Chicago School theorists were heavily influenced by their understandable revulsion for totalitarianism and planned economies, echoes of which were reflected from Nazi Germany to the nominally socialist Soviet state. Their intentions were good, but their teachings ultimately became bound by ideology, i.e. dogma.

And with dogma came dogmatics who could not see past their noses, buried as they were in the literal interpretation of their masters' theories: laissez-faire, individual responsibility, freedom of choice, unfettered markets - they were all interpreted in extremis, not contained by common sense. Soft-drink companies were allowed to install vending machines in schools, in exchange for money that was cut from their budgets. Markets were deregulated... and deregulated... and deregulated, until Enron got its hands on the electricity grid and black-outs occurred in California's cities more frequently than in Mogadishu.

Employment experienced a radical shift. Lower level workers were turned into versions of disposable salaried contractors, while the top filled with a caste of itinerant managers whose only concern was to hit their stock option targets. And why not? Milton Friedman had already proclaimed that the only social responsibility of business was to increase profits.

So profits increased.

After-tax corporate profits as a percentage of GDP have now grown to an all-time high (see chart below). Because a very small percentage of Americans own stock directly or indirectly, the benefits accrue to a very narrow segment of the population, greatly widening income disparities. More money is being made, but fewer people are getting it. Bill Gates walks into a bar and everyone turns into a multi millionaire - on average.

Data: BEA

But that's not the whole story, because it wasn't the entire corporate sector that made such record profits. Rather, it was the financial industry that made out like bandits (see chart below). They saw their share of GDP quintuple, whereas non-financials only recently managed to recoup amid the general rise in profitability.

Data: BEA

In the past 25 years profits of the financial sector went from 25% of total corporate profits to 50% (see chart below), a condition frequently called the "financialization of America". Lending and shuffling money around has become by far the biggest business in America, even eclipsing that perennial target of the populist press, the oil companies.

Aha! you may point out: Think of all those jobs the finance industry creates. Good jobs, highly paid jobs - heck, even the secretaries at Goldman make triple figure bonuses - and they are members of the B&T crowd, not Greenwich debutantes. But you would be wrong; because, according to the Labor Department, of the 41.5 million new private sector jobs created in the US since 1980, only 3.5 million were in financial activities. The entire financial industry today employs a mere 5.4% of all Americans working in the private sector, even less than the 6.6% in 1980. Those fat bonuses are going to very few people, after all.

By contrast, during the same time period the leisure and hospitality sector added 7 million jobs and retail trade 5.1 million. Those two sectors account for some of the lowest-paid workers in America, i.e. waiters, hotel maids and store attendants and their combined share of total private sector employment increased from 22.8% to 25%. More people are making less money than before.

Most people get employed where they can, not necessarily where they want: if GM lays off tens of thousands, the next job for a skilled machinist is unlikely to be at another car factory. Some go straight from the shop floor to tending bar. In the last 30 years GM has reduced its workforce in the US from 600.000 to around 100.000. What are people supposed to do? Slash their wrists? Or get a home equity loan to meet expenses, while working at a job that pays 50% less with no benefits, hoping things will improve?

Schumpeter fans will by now be thinking: creative destruction. True, very true. The only problem is that good jobs that were destroyed in America were replaced by good jobs (relatively speaking) in China and India, whose vast pools of peasants turned into factory and service workers. In a globalized economy, there is nothing that cannot be done equally well in China, India or both, at a huge discount. Not even securities research, as some investment bank employees are discovering to their dismay. In the meantime, what are Americans (and Europeans) supposed to do? Borrow, spend and hope the theoretical benefits of globalization materialize before the repo man comes.

Was there a Grand Conspiracy to create debt slaves in America? No, I don't believe so. But the profit motive as a sole driving force in business was more than enough - and stupid in the extreme. Any fool of a manager can increase profits for a short period of time - all it takes is a sharp axe and a dull conscience. We see now what happens when we let loose a whole pack of smart operators and financiers upon the US economy offering them billions, if only they boost share prices from X to Y.

We have bamboozled ourselves into hiring trigger-men in suits to "rub out" entire sections of the economy, selfishly thinking that they will only "hit" the other guy. Well... guess what? We are ALL the other guy.

55 comments:

You are a goddamn genius--especially in these last two posts. You just keep getting better. Quick, to the point and unerringly instep with events. Witty and with a great sense of style yet neither bias, cant nor rhetoric. Honest and direct. An absolute treat to read. Really look forward to it.

As a retired lawyer presently dividing my retirement between the U.K. and Western Australia I shudder to think of having had to cross examine you as a witness for the other side. You would have had us all for breakfast.

Since discovering your post (from a reference on another blog) I have moved it to the top of the favourites column of my "Crises Blogs" folder and have now reduced the original list to only a handful. I expect in time to delete all the others save yours! Also have sent your URL to correspondents in Europe, U.K., U.S.A. and Australia and you inevitably crop up in our transcontinental telephone conversations: "Have you read the latest Sudden Debt!"

You are one of the few voices of sanity in an otherwise totally mad, mad, mad, mad, mad world!

The key question I'm struggling with is how long can they artifically prop up the system, aginst the backdrop that this process itsself takes more and more liquidity or resources. Ponzi comes to mind and he was eventually caught, how long con this go on?I haven't seen a piece of good news in months and all pundits are waiting for the Santa rally...?!

I believe that you must be VERY angry about the situation and what you saw during the last 20 years to invest hundreds of hours of your time into this extremely brilliant texts. I am "scotched" (French expression).

IIRC I found your blog thanks to a link on this one in last May or so. But Loic only posts 3/6 times a monthhttp://tropicalbear.over-blog.com/

Hellasious,Nice posts. Thanks. In the first section you write "I respectfully submit that Mr. Bernanke first needs to get an umbrella."Maybe you could elaborate a bit on what you think the poor fellow is supposed to do.I mean the horse is out the stable by now and the means at his disposure are somewhat limited.I would say that tempering with private contracts as suggested by Paulson does not help to create conficence among market participants as potential investors will head for the hills.Is there anything the Fed can do to bring back confidence? I don't see it.

The posts and comments here are very informative and I walk away thinking I have a better understanding of things. Then I read an article like this one and I'm right back where I started.

Would you care to refute this article (excerpted below)?

What about claims of a disappearing middle class? Let's do some detective work. Controlling for inflation, in 1967, 8 percent of households had an annual income of $75,000 and up; in 2003, more than 26 percent did. In 1967, 17 percent of households had a $50,000 to $75,000 income; in 2003, it was 18 percent. In 1967, 22 percent of households were in the $35,000 to $50,000 income group; by 2003, it had fallen to 15 percent. During the same period, the $15,000 to $35,000 category fell from 31 percent to 25 percent, and the under $15,000 category fell from 21 percent to 16 percent. The only reasonable conclusion from this evidence is that if the middle class is disappearing, it's doing so by swelling the ranks of the upper classes.

What about the concentration of wealth? In 1918, John D. Rockefeller's fortune accounted for more than half of one percent of total private wealth. To compile the same half of one percent of the private wealth in the United States today, you'd have to combine the fortunes of Microsoft's Bill Gates ($53 billion) and Paul Allen ($16 billion), Oracle's Larry Ellison ($19 billion), and a third of Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett's $46 billion. In 1920, America's richest one percent held about 40 percent of private wealth; by 1980, the private wealth held by the richest one percent fell to about 20 percent and has remained stable at that level since.

If weakening labor unions in the early 80's was the reason for corporate profit explosion, why didn't corporate profits explode until 2002?

How did labor unions keep profits down in the financial sector?

And, in the 70's did the labor unions only "stick it to the fat cats" or did the stick it to the middle class through higher cost, products? If it was just corporate profits that took a hit why did the American middle class abandon GM & Ford in favor of non-union shops like Toyota & Honda?

Why does the American middle class still hate unions? Brainwashing?

Blame the Bretton Woods system that over valued US labor. Blame Asian mercantilism that values capital accumulation over total factor productivity. Blame Greenspan for suggesting the government re-jigger the CPI to solve a budgetary problem. Blame Volker for pulling housing out of the CPI (to mask deflation at the time and give him cover to jack rates). Blame accounting standards in the 70's that allowed companies to promise un-sustainable future benefits without impacting todays profits. Blame the rise in two income households that increased the ticket price to the middle class. Blame failing school districts and the flight to the suburbs.

Blame all of it, any of it, but draw a line from A->B->C instead of becomming a modern day sophist.

1. Income brackets in dollars reveals very little. It is actual buying power that needs to be compared, i.e. "accounting for inflation" holds oceans of water.

For example, today's $75.000 is equivalent to $12.500 in 1967 dollars if we use the govt. CPI numbers, as the quoted article does. Using my college example from the previous post, $75.000 will buy 1.5 years there today. I do not know how many years exactly it bought in 1967, but I would guess at LEAST 4.

Also, a college education is an essential today for making that quoted $75K - it wasn't so much in 1967. The same goes for a number of other goods and services.

2. Using 1967 is clever. Look at the income/debt chart again from the first post. Notice how income growth started rising smartly then, but collapsed after 1980, i.e. most of the expansion in the brackets had already occurred between 1967-80.

3. Are we going to really compare 3-4 individuals to make a case about wealth concentration? And go all the way back to 1918-20? We may as well then use King James - he and his probably held 90% of the wealth of England. We need to compare within a time frame that affects people alive today.

The thrust of the post was that the extreme way in which the neo-lib/neo-con policies were applied post ~1980 decimated the fundamental strengths of the US society and economy. I do not think it sophistry...

Distillation of Anonymous post above: You and Krugman do good economic analysis, but since it conflicts with my preconceived notions of my heroes and their theories--Trickle Down--(you know that warm yellow liquid flowing down wage-earners heads), I reject it on faith.

The thrust of the post was that the extreme way in which the neo-lib/neo-con policies were applied post ~1980 decimated the fundamental strengths of the US society and economy. I do not think it sophistry...

But, please put your finger on what policies put in place in the 1980's that put us in this mess? In other words, what would you have done differently?

Inflation in the early 80's was threatening to go exponential; the US was losing its manufacturing base to the Japanese; and the cold war was threatening to go nuclear in the Middle East.

Volker attacked inflation with high interest rates (and to do so he removed housing from the CPI and replaced it with owners equivalent rent to mask deflation and keep rates high). Reagan attacked the problems of American competitiveness by lowering taxes, deregulating the economy, and brought wages in-line by weakening labor unions. He also massively increased government spending to keep the economy from going into a depression. Reagan also removed subsidies on accelerating consumption by removing the deduction on consumer loans but kept the deduction on mortgage interest.

Other than wishing for miraculous gains in productivity, what would you have done differently?

In other words, if Volker had kept housing in the CPI the housing bubble may have never happened. But, would Volker have been able to muster the political support needed to keep interest rates high in the face of deflation and a recession? Should Reagan have pulled the home interest deduction in face of declining home prices?

As you made clear in yesterday's post, debt has substituted for income. As is clear in today's post, debt has been very profitable for finance. The US is considered the genius of financial alchemy. Now the chickens are coming home to roast.

Today's battle ground: how to save the debt slave while also saving the finance-driven economy. The worry is two pronged: recession of the real economy and crisis in finance. The two of course compound each other - as one worsens so does the other, providing a feedback loop to exacerbate each other.

This seems to be most on the minds of the Fed, Treasury . . . and the Fed/Treasury watchers. For those who believe it can be pulled off, that is, saving the debt consumer and finance, there exists a belief in the ability to manage such an environment in the face of complexity and the global networks in which the fate of all is interwoven.

This belief will and must prevail . . . at least until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that the 'managers' don't leave themselves any room for failure . . . and what they would do in the event that their efforts fail. Should this come about . . . their failure, that is . . . then the situation we're all left with will be played out in a context in which the outcome will be determined by 'natural' forces of the market.

Seems to me it is the belief in these natural forces that got us into this in the first place . . . and it will be this belief that will leave us with the calamity.

Class warfare? Warfare takes at least two to make happen. Today, it is largely the elite who are class conscious (aside from perhaps the classless middle class). The poor working classes are more poverty conscious.

So why the blinders on class? Because antagonisms between sectors of our society have been defined by (multi)cultural issues, beliefs, lifestyle, gender, etc. Think abortion, gay marriage, and general forms of expression.

These issues swirl in the pit of social conflicts, engaged in by conservatives and liberals alike. These conflicts serve to draw lines of antagonism among multiple sectors of society . . . that in effect skirt class.

And what might turn this around? Well . . . the very situation we find ourselves now as it regards today's Sudden Debt and the crisis that it embeds. Thus . . . in some perverse way I suppose . . . I find the present situation desirable.

Perhaps, and I realize this is a stretch, the outcome might eventually be the democratization of the economy, where we ultimately find the essence of depth democracy, which has thus far been contained to the sphere of the political, itself defined in the most crass and narrow alleys: politicians, campaign races, elections.

Presumably ye contributors know and understand the nature and scope of the FIRE economy. I have seen several references to it in some of your replies, so you must have some appreciation of it's relevance to the present crisis. If you do not know what the FIRE is, please go over to iTulip.com and read through the archives. There are at least two major articles which describe the features of the FIRE economy. They are very informative.

Also, see if you can find the contribution by Aaron Krowne detailing the sharp decrease in the level of the Fractional Reserve deposit requirement which occurred about 1995. It's a technical matter, but it seems to be quite significant.

I'm not a great conspiracy fan - the level of intellect and resources required to establish and maintain one seems to be in short supply. However, I am a believer in plain vanilla greed and the reckless behaviour that it occasions. There is also the matter of individual arrogance: - "I know everything that there is to know, so the rest of you can just shove off!"

H. Thanks for the ref. about derivatives. There was an excellent explanation of Money/Credit on market-ticker.denninger.net; Mon Dec 3rd.

Manufacturing abandons the U.S. for more fertile low- wage and unregulated areas like China. U.S. wages stagnate. The manufacturers ship cheap goods from China to the U.S. and market them through Wal-Mart and big box retailers among others. To make up for the shortfall of wages in the U.S. the financial community steps in and provides us with the wherewithal to purchase those inexpensive goods with ample credit. Low wage workers are also allowed to pour over the southern border providing a nice anchor against rising wages. The medical industry takes advantage of inelastic demand for their services and raise prices through the roof.

Capitalist managers have always tried to maximize their own returns and those of their stockholders in any way possible. There are many examples, Enron is a good one and I loved the cigarette manufacturing executive’s testimony swearing that nicotine was not addictive. It’s all water under the bridge at this point. The sharks have inflicted their damage and the victims will only flail about as the whole shebang heads over the energy waterfall. I fully expect our remaining capital to be diverted to building more super-duper churches, temples and what-not to encourage magical intervention in our mysteriously deteriorating condition. I see giant Moai on the horizon.

Wasn't "Dallas" with J.R. Ewing one of the most popular shows from 1978 to 1991? A real hero for a whole generation of capitalist operators.

Rising incomes can support higher asset prices even without credit expansion. Incomes can rise even without an increase in money (credit) through increasing velocity. Productivity gains and deferred consumption (savings) can also support higher real incomes without credit expansion.

In other words, tweaking a machine to produce more widgets with less waste increases the values of that asset. Deferring consumption and paying off the loan used to buy the machine decreases credit but doesn't impact the value of the asset.

Credit expansion driving asset prices without supporting incomes is the definition of a bubble.

If you want to look for a source of the credit bubble, I imagine the U.S. government is a pretty good place to start. By decoulping from a "hard" currency and allowing for the creation of money through credit without the usual supply/demand increase of interest rates, the Fed has single-handedly created this credit bubble over the last 30 years. In addition, government spending has created the illusion of economic growth by leveraging taxpayer money up and injecting it back into the economy. If the U.S. government hadn't been deficit spending over the last 20 years, much of this problem would never have been created.

Sadly, I don't think there is anything Bernanke can do at this point. Or anyone else in the government for that matter. Someone is going to get hurt, although I expect it will be the prudent people who saved rather than speculators (see below).

My real question is what are the odds the United States needs to default on its debt at some point? My sense is that is definitely going to happen at some point, unless a massive, long-term currency devaluation is used to reduce the "real" value of the debt and bail out the government.

to Mike1967 - 2007Suppose one entity A claims that the average rate of inflation during that time was 3% while according to B's figures it was 5.4%.Let's see what happens to an income of $10K over those 30 years.A: $24272B: $48441Wow, by cheating only 2.4% per year you can erode somebodies income by 50% over a 30 year period. That's EXACTLY what government is doing with their bogus CPI numbers. They exclude everything from their calculations that went up in price and the proclaim that we have no/little inflation. Look at energy, tution, healthcare, housing. Of course if you exclude those "volatile" goods and instead focus on electronics and cheap plastic crap from China you will come up with numbers similar to those published by the government.

1) I believe you focused too much on the income side and not enough on the supply (price) side. The question is - why did prices for housing, college and health care go up well in excess of inflation (and far more than income)? The rapid increases in housing costs can attributed to the ultra-low interest rates of 2001 to 2004 coupled with poor underwriting standards. College to several factors - elite schools raising their tuitions (since cost is not a big obstacle for the wealthy parents) and most other schools raising theirs in-line, spending to meet parental and student expectations for campus amenities that didn’t exist a generation ago (e.g., health clubs), and the ability of colleges to pass off increased costs to parents who then demand, and get, more government programs to pay for it. Health care has too many factors to go into here but think demographics, new and improved technology and price distortions caused by intermediaries (e.g., insurance, government, etc.).

2) After-tax corporate profits during Thatcher/Reagan did not exceed previous levels so I don’t see how you make the connection that “it all started” on their watch. In fact, record low corporate profits occurred during their era (around the mid-80’s); profits did not exceed previous peaks while they were in office. Further, profits make a cyclical peak around 1998/1999 that was roughly in line with previous peaks, and then fell into 2002. The outsized corporate profits occurred after 2002, well after Thatcher/Reagan.

3) Financial profits have been going up, albeit irregularly, since 1947. Again, I don’t see the Thatcher/Reagan connection.

4) I think the causes lie elsewhere – a central bank committed to inflation, global wage arbitrage, unintended consequences of government involvement, incessant inducements to spend and “invest”, no incentives to save, etc.

"Credit expansion driving asset prices without supporting incomes is the definition of a bubble."

16 cents of incremental national income per dollar of incremental debt growth is an appalling ratio. In the early 1980s, the ratio was a much better 50%.

As for rising asset prices being supported by rising incomes in the absence of credit expansion, this theory doesn't apply to the US over the post-2001 period. Which period are you referring to?

Finally, interest rates went high during a part of Volcker's tenure because he targeted money supply growth rather than the Fed Funds rate.

Bankers hated the idea of targeting money supply because they couldn't expand debt as rapidly as they wanted. Reagan hated it because it would have forced him to roll back his massive deficits by offsetting them with tax increases. Which he was forced to do eventually.

As for rising asset prices being supported by rising incomes in the absence of credit expansion, this theory doesn't apply to the US over the post-2001 period. Which period are you referring to?

Sorry, I wasn't arguing your point but more trying to flesh out the ideas more fully.

The post-2001 period has seemed to be one of "ponzi finance" where new debt was being used to pay old debt. I always wanted to strangle the pundits who said that negative US savings rates "didn't matter" because we'd moved to "asset based savings". As if, somehow, we had created a never ending stream of greater fools that were willing to pay ever higher prices for our assets.

I think the ponzi finance nature of the US debt markets is best illustrated by the fact that credit card balances are increasing at a much faster rate that PCE. People are making the mortgage and car payments with credit cards.

Only to note that 'record corporate profits' have been a function of record credit inflation rather than value creation and that when measuring rate of profit as total profit relative to total capital rather than perct of GDP, we are no where near a record. The long run decline and stagnation in wages + credit expansiveness + tax cuts have not solved the profit problem in the U.S., which is also one reason there was and continues such a turn to speculative activities, a pattern that runs back into the early 19th c. but never so pervasive as the last decades.

Mish's blog? That one is getting old and less intelligent. I will visit it if I have more time.

Go to read Roubini's blog. There are many many good blooger/economusts in there debating evveryday, and each is better than the Computer Programmer Mish.

It is laughable that Mish used the same mind set of computer logic/programming to argue that Oil-Dollar unpeg have ZERO consequences in USA because he think USD can be converted to Euro through Computer Screen clicking.

He forget, and he never able to counter argue with other smarter blogers later, that if Oil is priced in Euro but not USD, then USA has a major problem in paying for oil priced in non-USD-currency, and FED would have a hard time printing money USD to meet oil demand.

I am not a fan of Roubini. He recognized the problems too late (just few days back arguing about growth recession) and now turned into a lunatic by asking Fed to cut rates as soon as possible. He is a well-educated idiot (a.k.a academic) just like Bernanke, who is fighting 30's depression. If Roubini is hired as a Fed governor, his true knowledge will be exposed.

He forget, and he never able to counter argue with other smarter blogers later, that if Oil is priced in Euro but not USD, then USA has a major problem in paying for oil priced in non-USD-currency, and FED would have a hard time printing money USD to meet oil demand.

Do stock splits increase values of the companies? Everyone knows that it doesn't, but still if a company announces split, it gets markup in stock prices. Does that mean the market is stupid? Maybe not, because the market believes that by announcing stock split, the managers of the company are hinting that they expect stock prices to rise further.

Your/Mish's argument about oil in dollar versus euro is similar. Mish is making the logical argument, but what you are effectively saying is that oil is priced in dollar means US is strong. If oil get priced in euros, that would also mean strength of US diminished. Therefore it is harmful.

Could both sides be right in an argument? There are two examples above.

Just to thank you for bringing neoliberal policies into the equation, since these have been devastating the so-called less developed world for decades even while directly harming millions in the 'core' nations.

Since it seems you are taking book recommendations, try:

David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism

"'With characteristic brilliance, David Harvey offers a razor-sharp analysis of the history and current condition of neoliberalism. A must read if you want to know the state we are in and how to change it.'' Erik Swyngedouw, Professor of Geography, University of Oxford"

I asked this of Rich H over on RGE, but perhaps you could offer a view as well.

I couldn't help noticing a pattern yesterday that perhaps you could confirm for me. When LTCM went down, the firm that stepped in and bought huge amount of hedge fund bonds at deep discount was Citadel Investment Group. Last year they bought up Amaranth's positions at deep discount when they ran into trouble. This summer they bought up the assets of Sentinel, the Chicago money manager that failed, at deep discount (with the complicity of the CFTC). And now they have bought up e-Trade's troubled portfolio at 27 pence on the dollar.

Who is behind Citadel? Who are its investors? They do not use prime brokers, have their own account at DTCC and keep securities lending in-house so are super secretive.

I note that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan led Citadel's $2 billion bond offering - the first in the hedge fund industry (just in time for the "shake out").

This could be a critical piece of figuring out who is behind the curtain and pulling the levers.

Hellasious, What garbage. "It all started with the neo-liberal economists of the Thatcher - Reagan era, who initiated the process of decimating wage income by attacking labor unions"...

I would like to have a nickel for every time I've had to sit through a conversation with an acquaintance who not only bragged about getting rich by flipping homes every two years but who told me how stupid I was for staying in the same job with my employer rather than flipping jobs every two years for a raise. Then after they both price and age themselves out of the market and are canned from their job, they pontificate about the absence of "loyality" of companies to workers and how companies are just out for a profit. That's when I remind them that each time they left one job for another they, in essence, "fired" the company for profit. I can be greedy but you can't...oh yeah, now I see. Tough Kash..ski.

Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for any of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy. Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars which have been transfered FROM US TO THEM. All over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They just keep getting richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductible crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. Cashing in on the PR and getting even richer the following year. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. Their bogus efforts to make the world a better place can not possibly succeed. Any 'humanitarian' progress made in one area will be lost in another. EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. So don’t fall for any of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductible contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGenerous, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. Now, there are commercial ties between nearly every industry and every public figure. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. No offense fellow citizens. But we have been mislead by nearly every public figure. We still are. Even now, they claim to be 'hurting' right along with the rest of us. As if gas prices actually effect the lifestyle of a millionaire. ITS A LIE. IN 2007, THE RICHEST 1% INCREASED THEIR AVERAGE BOTTOM LINE WEALTH AGAIN. On average, they are now worth over $4,000,000 each. Thats an all time high. As a group, they are now worth well over $17,000,000,000,000. THATS WELL OVER SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS. Another all time high. Which by the way, is much more than the entire middle and lower classes combined. Also more than enough to pay off our national debt, fund the Iraq war for twenty years, repair our infrastructure, and bail out the US housing market. Still think that our biggest problem is China? Think again. Its the 1% club. That means every big name celebrity, athlete, executive, entrepreneur, developer, banker, and lottery winner. Along with many attorneys, doctors, politicians, and bankers. If they are rich, then they are part of the problem. Their incredible wealth was not 'created', 'generated', grown in their back yard, or printed up on their command. It was transfered FROM US TO THEM. Directly and indirectly. Its become near impossible to spend a dollar without making some greedy pig even richer. Don't be fooled by the occasional loss of a millionaire's fortune. Overall, they just keep getting richer. They absolutely will not stop. Still, they have the nerve to pretend as if they care about ordinary people. ITS A LIE. NOTHING BUT CALCULATED PR CRAP. WAKE UP PEOPLE. THEIR GOAL IS TO WIN THE GAME. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Reaganomics. Their idea. Loans from China. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. High energy prices. Their idea. Oil 'futures'. Their idea. Obscene health care charges. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit. Their idea. The multi-million dollar endorsement deal. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. Brainwash plots on TV. Their idea. Vioxx, and Celebrex. Their idea. Excessive medical testing. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed, credit card, pharmaceutical, medical testing, love-sick, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of the above shrink the middle class, concentrate the world’s wealth and resources, create a dominoe effect of socio-economic problems, and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, executives, entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for any of their ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTIBLE PR CRAP. In many cases, the 'charitable' contribution is almost entirely offset. Not to mention the opportunity to plug their name, image, product, and 'good will' all at once. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. These filthy pigs even have the nerve to throw a fit and spin up a misleading defense with regard to 'federal tax revenue'. ITS A SHAM. THEY SCREWED UP THE EQUATION TO BEGIN WITH. If the middle and lower classes had a greater share of the pie, they could easily cover a greater share of the federal tax revenue. They are held down in many ways because of greed. Wages remain stagnant for millions because the executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, and entrepreneurs, are paid millions. They over-sell, over-charge, under-pay, outsource, cut jobs, and benefits to increase their bottom line. As their profits rise, so do the stock values. Which are owned primarily by the richest 5%. As more United States wealth rises to the top, the middle and lower classes inevitably suffer. This reduces the potential tax reveue drawn from those brackets. At the same time, it wreaks havok on middle and lower class communities and increases the need for financial aid. Not to mention the spike in crime because of it. There is a dominoe effect to consider. IT CAN'T WORK THIS WAY. But our leaders refuse to acknowledge this. Instead they come up with one trick after another to milk the system and screw the majority. These decisions are heavily influensed by the 1% club. Every year, billions of federal tax dollars are diverted behind the scenes back to the rich and their respective industries. Loans from China have been necessary to compensate in part, for the red ink and multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth to the rich. At the same time, the feds have been pushing more financial burden onto the states who push them lower onto the cities. Again, the hardship is felt more by the majority and less by the 1% club. The rich prefer to live in exclusive areas or upper class communities. They get the best of everything. Reliable city services, new schools, freshly paved roads, upscale parks, ect. The middle and lower class communities get little or nothing without a local tax increase. Which, they usually can't afford. So the red ink flows followed by service cuts and lay-offs. All because of the OBSCENE distribution of bottom line wealth in this country. Anyway, when you account for all federal, state, and local taxes, the middle class actually pay about the same rate as the rich. The devil is in the details. So when people forgive the rich for their incredible greed and then praise them for paying a greater share of the FEDERAL income taxes, its like nails on a chalk board. I can not accept any theory that our economy would suffer in any way with a more reasonable distribution of wealth. Afterall, it was more reasonable 30 years ago. Before Reaganomics came along. Before GREED became such an epidemic. Before we had an army of over-paid executives, bankers, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, doctors, investors, entrepreneurs, developers, and sold-out politicians to kiss their asses. As a nation, we were in much better shape. Strong middle class, free and clear assets, lower crime rate, more widespread prosperity, stable job market, lower deficit, ect. Our economy as a whole was much more stable and prosperous for the majority. WITHOUT LOANS FROM CHINA. Now, we have a more obscene distribution of bottom line wealth than ever before. We have a sold-out government, crumbling infrastructure, energy crisis, home forclosure epidemic, credit crunch, weak US dollar, 13 figure national deficit, and 12 figure annual shortfall. The cost of living is higher than ever before. Most people can't even afford basic health care. ALL BECAUSE OF GREED. I really don't blame the 2nd -5th percentiles in general. No economy could ever function without some reasonable scale of personal wealth and income. But it can't be allowed to run wild like a mad dog. ALBERT EINSTEIN TRIED TO MAKE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. UNBRIDLED CAPITALISM ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK. TOP HEAVY ECONOMIES ALWAYS COLLAPSE. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. The American dream will be shattered. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, and Bill are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. EXTREME WEALTH MAKES WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman.. Of course, they will jump to small minded conclusions about 'jealousy', 'envy', or 'socialism'. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE.

So what can we do about it? Well, not much. Unfortunately, we are stuck on a runaway train. The problem has gone unchecked for too many years. The US/global depression is comming thanks to the 1% club. It would take a massive effort by the vast majority to prevent it. Along with a voluntary sacrifice by the rich. THATS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. But if you believe in miracles, then spend your money as wisely as possible. Especially in middle and lower class communities. Check the Fortune 500 list and limit your support of high profit/low labor industries (Hollywood, pro sports, energy, credit, pharmaceutical, cable, satelite, internet advertising, cell phone, high fashion, jewelry, ect.). Cancel all but one credit card for emergencies only. If you need a cell phone, then do your homework and find the best deal on a local pre-pay. If you want home internet access, then use the least expensive provider, and share accounts whenever possible. If you need to search, then use the less popular search engines. They usually produce the same results anyway. Don't click on any internet ad. If you need the product or service, then look up the phone number or address and contact that business directly. Don't pay to see any blockbuster movie. Instead, wait a few months and rent the DVD from a local store or buy it USED. If you want to see a big name game or event, then watch it in a local bar, club, or at home on network TV. Don't buy any high end official merchendise and don't support the high end sponsors. If its endorsed by a big name celebrity, then don't buy it. If you can afford a new car, then make an exception for GM, Ford, and Dodge. If they don't increase their market share soon, then a lot more people are going to get screwed out of their pensions and/or benefits. Of course, you must know by now to avoid those big trucks and SUVs unless you truly need one for its intended purpose. Don't be ashamed to buy a foreign car if you prefer it. Afterall, those with the most fuel efficient vehicles consume a lot less foreign oil. Which accounts for a pretty big chunk of our trade deficit. Anyway, the global economy is worth supporting to some extent. Its the obscene profit margins, trade deficits, and BS from OPEC that get us into trouble. Otherwise, the global economy would be a good thing for everyone. Just keep in mind that the big 3 are struggling and they do produce a few smaller reliable cars. Don't frequent any high end department store or any business in a newly developed upper class community. By doing so, you make developers richer and draw support away from industrial areas and away from the middle class communities. Instead, support the local retailer and the less popular shopping centers. Especially in lower or middle class communities. If you can afford to buy a home, then do so. But go smaller and less expensive. Don't get yourself in too deep and don't buy into the newly developed condos or gated communities. Instead, find a modest home in a building or neighborhood at least 20 years old. If you live in one of the poorer states, then try to support its economy first and foremost. Be on the lookout for commercial brainwash plots on TV. They are written into nearly every scene of nearly every show. Most cater to network sponsors and parent companies. Especially commercial health care. Big business is fine on occasion depending on the profit margins and profit sharing. Do your homework. If you want to support any legitimate charity, then do so directly. Never support any celebrity foundation. They spend most of their funding on PR campaigns, travel, and high end accomodations for themselves. Instead, go to Charitywatch.org and look up a top rated charity to support your favorite cause. In general, support the little guy as much as possible and the big guy as little as possible. Do your part to reverse the transfer of wealth away from the rich and back to the middle and lower classes. Unfortunately, there is no perfect answer. Jobs will be lost either way. Innocent children will starve and die either way. But we need to support the largest group of workers with the most reasonable profit margins. We also need to support LEGITIMATE charities (Check that list at Charitywatch.org). This is our only chance to limit the severity and/or duration of the comming US/global depression. In the meantime, don't listen to Bernanke, Paulson, Bartiromo, Orman, Dobbs, Kramer, OReiley, or any other public figure with regard to the economy. They are all plenty smart but I swear to you that they will lie right through their rotten teeth. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. These people work for big business. The 'experts' they cite also work for big business. They are all motivated by their desire to accumulate more wealth. THEY WILL LIE RIGHT THROUGH THEIR ROTTEN TEETH. So don't fall for their tricks. Instead, look at the big picture. The economic problems we face have been mounting for well over 20 years. All of them caused or aggrivated by a constant transfer of wealth from poorer to richer. Soon, it will cause the first ever GLOBAL DEPRESION. Its not brain surgery. Its simple math. Like I said, you are welcome to run this by any professor of economics or socio-economics. If thats not good enough, then look up what Einstein had to say about greed, extreme wealth, and its horrible concequences. I speak the truth. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL.

Its already underway. A massive campaign to divert our attention. Trump, Buffet, OReiley, Pickens, and several others have been running their mouths about the economy. Finally admitting a hint of severity. They even have the nerve to acknowledge the possibility of a US/global depression. Still, they refuse to acknowledge the underlying cause. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL.

A word for those who respond with the usual 'I know more than you. Look how smart, knowledgable, and articulate I am' crap. Let me say this in advance. I don't claim to be an expert in this field. But I did go on record with these predictions long before any public figure uttered the word 'recession'. If you search long enough, you will find my early postings from '05' and '06'. Including the first draft of this rant. Since then, I've gone on record against people like Greenspan, Bernanke, and Paulson. So far, my predictions have been accurate. Like I said. This is not brain surgery. For the mostpart, its simple math. When you concentrate the world's wealth, you also concentrate its capital and shrink the middle class along with the potential market for every major industry. Homes go unsold. Bills go unpaid. Banks fail. More products go unsold. Jobs are lost. More banks fail. and so on. and so on. Throughout the cycle, the rich will tighten their grip. Concentrating the world's wealth and resources even further and ensuring the collapse of every major economy worldwide. Think it can't happen? Think again. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL.

Another thing. I don't want credit for any of this. Otherwise, I would have given my full name a long time ago. As far as I'm concerned, you can put this rant in your own words and take credit for all of it. I don't care. Just spread the word. Otherwise, the greatest injustice of all time will go down in history unchecked.